Soviet aircraft the west coulda/shoulda used?

[Njaco]

I keep having flashbacks to the opening credits of "Air America".

Stranger things other than a small caliber bullet have brought a fighter down.

Its possible. But to say that it would never, ever happen is not being open to possibilities.

 

[moomoo2]

What's that supposed to mean??
There is even a theory (from Suvurov) that Il-2 rear-gunners were political prisonners, basically being sent on suicide missions.



Kris

Thats an old story thats been hanging around for years but i've read various accounts from ex il2 pilots and their gunners were generally just normal recruits, there were some reports of the suicide gunners but never did any of these pilots ever see one themselves. It was a bit "Loch Ness monster".

 

[VG-33]

Ok, this is starting to get stupid...all the ridiculous nitpicking...

Ok, who begun to go in that way?

The P-47 was not an open cockpit like a Fokker D.VII...it did in fact have armor plating that afforded the pilot good protection. Moreso than most Allied aircraft.

Yes it was much better protected by it's bubbletop plexiglass!!! The P-47 had armor plating, but it was not covering all the vital points of the plane and not only the pilot, unlike the Il2. Even the P-47 pilot was far from being protected by armour from all sides.

The amazing marksman that can keep his cool and squeeze off the shot that will hit the pilot in the head as the aircraft is diving and strafing them probably probably can't be stopped. I'll also figure that this same "ubermann" can take the top off a Sturmovik pilot, too. Seeing as how both aircraft didn't have armor plating all the way up the side of the pilot's head. If they did, it would be called a tank, and that's for a different thread entirely.

Stormovik pilot was fully covered either by glass armor, either by steel armor, from all sides. Yes, one stormovik pilot was killed one day by ukrainien indenpendantist near Lwow aera from a simple rifle, when he was flying with an opened canopy. In other cases...
In the future if you don't know the material about you're talking about, better abstain or study it from reliable sources.

I think every aspect of the comparison between the IL-2 and the P-47 has been played out, and the conclusion would be that no, the Allies didn't really have a need for such an aircraft just as much as the Soviets didn't see a need for the P-47s that were sent to them by way of the Lend-Lease.

Two different machines that filled two very important, but different roles.

That is ok Except on that soviets studied enough the P 47 before to see no need for it. For the allied, the question remains, since they never tested Il2, Il10, Su-6.

That was the spirit of the thread, and it would be nice to get back to the discussion instead of magic bullets and arguing every freaking aspect of a point until it becomes ridiculous.

There is a lot of flying bullets during a ground attack, and without any kind of magc some of them may hit your plane, and were doing so. With the MG 42 rate of fire, no need for being the "absolute marksman" for hitting a plane from time to time. And if the Il-2 is protected angainst the small bullets, it's not the P-47 case.

The Il-2 had no P-47 performance, as the P-47 had no Il-2 protection.
Nothing more.

VG-33

 

[michaelmaltby]

VG-33 - what I want to know more about are the aerial mini-mines that could be deployed under the belly of the Il-2 via mini-parachutes - drop 150 feet and explode. Did those things actually work?

MM

 

[michaelmaltby]

"... much as the Soviets didn't see a need for the P-47s that were sent to them by way of the Lend-Lease."

That has always puzzled me somewhat, GrauGeist. Why didn't the Soviets find the P-47 useful - especially given their desire to clone the B-29 - another high-tech complicated aircraft. I don't actually know how many L.L. P-47's the Soviets received. One reads that P-47's that broke down on shuttle missions through the USSR were retained, as well.

I have come to understand - rightly or wrongly - that P-47's were used later in the war for air patrol over Moscow. If that is true it suggeststhat (1) the Soviets recognized the P-47 would be a great defensive weapon if Germans tried a high altitude bomber run on the capital city, (2) that the leadership believed that the P-47's looked IMPRESSIVE to the street (who wouldn't know much about them, wouldn't likely have sons or daughters building/maintaining/flying them). The only thing the uninitiated would see is that they were BIG, FAST and POWERFUL.

Stationed in Moscow flying air patrols in P-47 D's with bubble canopies and air conditioning would have been a really plum assignment compared to flying Il-2's, Yaks etc from the fields close to the front.

Can anyone confirm that is how the Soviets used the handful of P-47's that they obtained?

MM

 

[VG-33]

VG-33 - what I want to know more about are the aerial mini-mines that could be deployed under the belly of the Il-2 via mini-parachutes - drop 150 feet and explode. Did those things actually work?

MM

And it was used by Pe-2, also. They work in what sense, that they oppened parachutes and exploded? Yes!

I'm not really fluent in russian, but i can read and talk. AFAIK from books i recieved from my russian friends some crews praised them, some didn't. The idea was not to destroy ennemy fighters, but surprising the pursuers you could "cut" the attack, and often the following ones, only by dissuasion.

It seemed more popular for Pe-2, being faster they had the time to escape after such a stratagem.

Regards

 

[michaelmaltby]

Thanks VG-33

MM

 

[vikingBerserker]

195 P-47's were supplied to Russia under LL

http://www.theeasternfront.co.uk/lendlease.htm


VG-33, how many Il-2's were lost during WW2

 

[Tzaw1]

In battle: 11,566 from 34,943 produced.
But... at end of war USSR had 3487 Il-2's.
And I have a question: what with remained 19,890?

 

[vikingBerserker]

A loss rate of 33%?? Cripes!

 

[GrauGeist]

"... much as the Soviets didn't see a need for the P-47s that were sent to them by way of the Lend-Lease."

That has always puzzled me somewhat, GrauGeist. Why didn't the Soviets find the P-47 useful - especially given their desire to clone the B-29 - another high-tech complicated aircraft. I don't actually know how many L.L. P-47's the Soviets received. One reads that P-47's that broke down on shuttle missions through the USSR were retained, as well.

I have come to understand - rightly or wrongly - that P-47's were used later in the war for air patrol over Moscow. If that is true it suggeststhat (1) the Soviets recognized the P-47 would be a great defensive weapon if Germans tried a high altitude bomber run on the capital city, (2) that the leadership believed that the P-47's looked IMPRESSIVE to the street (who wouldn't know much about them, wouldn't likely have sons or daughters building/maintaining/flying them). The only thing the uninitiated would see is that they were BIG, FAST and POWERFUL.

Stationed in Moscow flying air patrols in P-47 D's with bubble canopies and air conditioning would have been a really plum assignment compared to flying Il-2's, Yaks etc from the fields close to the front.

Can anyone confirm that is how the Soviets used the handful of P-47's that they obtained?

MM

Hi MM,

The Soviets were given 203 P-47D models which they relegated to high altitude defense over major urban areas in the rear. They didn't do much with them otherwise, since they already had heavy hitters like the P-39 and P-63 as well as the IL-2 and La-7. To be honest, I have never heard if they actually engaged Axis units with the Thunderbolts, but seeing as how they weren't at the front, my guess is they didn't.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

The average IL-2 had a "life expectancy" of 30 missions.

 

[VG-33]

195 P-47's were supplied to Russia under LL

Lend Lease


VG-33, how many Il-2's were lost during WW2

1.1 (0.6) in 41
2.6 (1,8 ) in 42
7.2 (3.9) in 43
8.9 (4.1) in 44
3.8 (2.0) in 45 in thousands (-) for combat reasons from krivosheyev.



on 1/05/45 soviet air forces had 10100 Il-2 and il10 in service. (some sources quoted 11-12 000 stormoviks)

a good link:

IL2 page Statistika

Combat losses are in the 4th and 5th table.

Regards

VG

 

[vikingBerserker]

Great info, thanks.

So out of 10,759 it lists as having been lost (ignoring the Navy chart):

2,557 were shot down by planes
4,679 by antiaircraft
109 on the grounds (I assume)
3,414 from unknown reasons

Not trying to be a smart a**, but for a plane supposedly very difficult to shoot down, at least 24% of the losses were from air to air combat.

 

[michaelmaltby]

GG - thanks for those numbers. I never realized they received that many. And I have never heard of P-47's engaging ....

FlyboyJ - you may be familiar with this link already:

Ëåò÷èêè-øòóðìîâèêè. Õóõðèêîâ Þðèé Ìèõàéëîâè÷. Ïðîåêò ß Ïîìíþ. Ãåðîé ÂÎÂ

The interviewee gives the impression that "survival" was more like 7-8 missions. That seems very short to me but surviving 30 seems very lucky. I have no skin in this game but am amazed at how emotional feelings run on the subject of the Eastern Front - clearly there is a lack of understanding of the sheer scale of Eastern Front operations (closest match is the US Pacific war), but I also get the feeling that there's a kind of fantasy involved that doesn't serve historical understanding as much as political/idealogical beliefs. Sad - because generations do need to understand the scale and sacrifice - but also need to understand it was unwinnable without the sheer brutality of the Soviet system.

Thanks for the stats VG33.

MM

 

[JoeB]

HOWEVER, the boiler of the locomotive is the key component of a steam locomotive. It contains water vapor (steam) that is under tremendous pressure, and is therefore constructed with a tempered steel for it's boiler. I'm not an expert on the various locomotives in use during that time period, but I do know that the steel used generally had to follow a certain PSI rating that exceeded the maximum amount of pressure (head of steam) that the locomotive could generate. Unless the round was AP or an HE round of a large caliber, there will be no penetration.

No, I must disagree. See my post above 'boiler plate' and 'mild steel' were generally synonymous terms because that's what was used in typical relatively low pressure boilers like those on steam locomotives, or 'locomotive type' (ie fire tube or Scotch) relatively low pressure boilers on ships. Mild steel means low carbon low alloy steel. Heat treatment (like tempering) is about rearranging the physical properties of the solid solution of carbon in iron, in mild steel not enough carbon for it to be relevant. One idea of mild steel is that hot rolling at the mill or hot forming during manufacture doesn't change the properties of the steel, even if the cooling is not closely controlled.

WWII era locomotive boilers typically operated at around 200-250psi (~14-17 bar) and it was quite practical, and therefore standard practice, to construct them of riveted mild steel. Thickness of a 200psi boiler was around 1/2" (12.5mm), higher pressure ones 9/16" (14mm). That's equivalent to around 9-10mm of rolled homogeneous armor plate (rule of thumb mild steel provides 75% as much protection), which .50 cal AP could penetrate at realistic ranges, assuming some rounds hit fairly close to perpendicular. And I've seen footage of locomotives strafed by USAAF a/c and apparently leaking steam copiously. Not trying to nitpick but just make clear the fact, that locomotive boilers could be and were penetrated by .50 cal strafing.

Joe

 

[FLYBOYJ]

GG - thanks for those numbers. I never realized they received that many. And I have never heard of P-47's engaging ....

FlyboyJ - you may be familiar with this link already:

Ëåò÷èêè-øòóðìîâèêè. Õóõðèêîâ Þðèé Ìèõàéëîâè÷. Ïðîåêò ß Ïîìíþ. Ãåðîé ÂÎÂ

The interviewee gives the impression that "survival" was more like 7-8 missions. That seems very short to me but surviving 30 seems very lucky. I have no skin in this game but am amazed at how emotional feelings run on the subject of the Eastern Front - clearly there is a lack of understanding of the sheer scale of Eastern Front operations (closest match is the US Pacific war), but I also get the feeling that there's a kind of fantasy involved that doesn't serve historical understanding as much as political/idealogical beliefs. Sad - because generations do need to understand the scale and sacrifice - but also need to understand it was unwinnable without the sheer brutality of the Soviet system.

Thanks for the stats VG33.

MM

I haven't seen it, great post!

 

[vanir]

Naval aviation were the only Soviet air force to use the P-47, and I think they were all stationed in the Black Sea.

One of the main reasons the P-39 was popular and equipped to Guards regiments was its luxurious equipment by Soviet standards (stated by Porkryshin), with three radios and good cockpit equipment. Its M4/T9 gun isn't that hard hitting, the British didn't even want it in their orders (switched for a Hispano 20mm).
The Soviets also requested the four thirties be removed from the wings as they were superfluous and reduced performance. The Q-series in service with some Guards pilots from 1944 were pretty good aircraft but the reputation of the type as a ground attack plane is an American phenomenon.
The Soviets used it as a fighter for aerial combat, or as a fighter-bomber escort for Il2 wings, it was never an anti-tank a/c as claimed by some commercial publications, the Oldsmobile 37mm could barely penetrate 25mm of slab armour at 90-degrees, something your average anti-tank infantry rifle could best. Anything tougher than a Japanese light tank rendered the weapon useless even with AP shells.
By comparison the Vickers S gun at 40mm had better than 50mm penetration and added another 50% to this with improved late war ammunition, whilst the German Mk101/103 could do just about the same at 30mm calibre.
The Oldsmobile gun was great for soft targets or aerial targets at relatively close range, Soviet vets mention a single shot would cause an enemy fighter to simply break up mid air.

Some sources claim 12,000 Il-2 are listed as being in active service at one time late in 1944, the highest number of any single aircraft type in history. Over 30,000 were delivered during the war. Of this some 2500 lost to interception sounds pretty good.

 

[GrauGeist]

No, I must disagree. See my post above 'boiler plate' and 'mild steel' were generally synonymous terms because that's what was used in typical relatively low pressure boilers like those on steam locomotives, or 'locomotive type' (ie fire tube or Scotch) relatively low pressure boilers on ships. Mild steel means low carbon low alloy steel. Heat treatment (like tempering) is about rearranging the physical properties of the solid solution of carbon in iron, in mild steel not enough carbon for it to be relevant. One idea of mild steel is that hot rolling at the mill or hot forming during manufacture doesn't change the properties of the steel, even if the cooling is not closely controlled.

WWII era locomotive boilers typically operated at around 200-250psi (~14-17 bar) and it was quite practical, and therefore standard practice, to construct them of riveted mild steel. Thickness of a 200psi boiler was around 1/2" (12.5mm), higher pressure ones 9/16" (14mm). That's equivalent to around 9-10mm of rolled homogeneous armor plate (rule of thumb mild steel provides 75% as much protection), which .50 cal AP could penetrate at realistic ranges, assuming some rounds hit fairly close to perpendicular. And I've seen footage of locomotives strafed by USAAF a/c and apparently leaking steam copiously. Not trying to nitpick but just make clear the fact, that locomotive boilers could be and were penetrated by .50 cal strafing.

Joe

Sorry Joe, I must have missed your post, which was good info, by the way.

I've also seen footage of ground attack conducted by Allied aircraft against rail targets, and they just tear those engines apart which was one of the things I was commenting on, as it had been said that a .50 couldn't penetrate thicker material and that's where my comment about the boilers came in. I had been under the impression that the steel used in the boilers had a higher density than mild, mainly because of the pressures behind it.

I have seen both a .30-06 AP and 7.62x39 AP punch through a 1/2" plate of mild at moderate ranges, so I can easily see a .50 doing the same. So I am in total agreement with you about the penetration!

 

[vikingBerserker]

Some sources claim 12,000 Il-2 are listed as being in active service at one time late in 1944, the highest number of any single aircraft type in history. Over 30,000 were delivered during the war. Of this some 2500 lost to interception sounds pretty good.

THis kinda makes me wonder and Tzar1 touched up this earlier.

If 30k were built, 11k were lost in combat ad there were at most 12k in service, what happened to the other 7k??